In the context of the digital transformation of education and the rapid expansion of online learning systems, the problem of early prediction of educational outcomes has become strategically important. Modern approaches to educational data analysis, such as Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics, enable the development of highly accurate predictive models. However, many of these models operate as “black boxes,” limiting the transparency of decision-making processes and reducing trust among educators and educational administrators. In this regard, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly recognized as a key instrument for improving the interpretability, ethical compliance, and practical applicability of machine learning models in education. The objective of this study is to develop and interpret a predictive model for student academic performance using XAI methodologies. The research applies a comparative analysis of Random Forest, XGBoost, and neural network algorithms, combined with interpretability techniques including SHAP, LIME, and Partial Dependence Plots (PDP). The study is based on a comprehensive educational dataset that includes academic performance indicators, demographic characteristics, and digital behavioral metrics extracted from Learning Management System (LMS) platforms. The findings indicate that gradient boosting models provide the highest predictive accuracy (ROC-AUC > 0.89). However, the integration of SHAP analysis enables the identification of key predictors of academic performance, including LMS interaction intensity, prior academic achievements, and behavioral engagement patterns. The interpretability analysis also reveals nonlinear relationships between study time investment and final academic performance. The practical significance of the study lies in establishing a methodological foundation for the development of transparent early-warning systems for academic risk detection, which can support evidence-based decision-making in educational institutions. The results further highlight the importance of integrating algorithmic fairness and AI ethics principles into educational analytics systems.
Keywords
Explainable Artificial IntelligenceXAIEducational Data MiningLearning AnalyticsSHAPAcademic Performance PredictionMachine LearningInterpretabilityEducational Big DataAlgorithmic Fairness.
References
R. S. Baker and K. Yacef, “The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions,” Journal of Educational Data Mining, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-17, 2009.
G. Siemens and R. S. J. d. Baker, “Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration,” LAK Proceedings, 2012.
D. Ifenthaler and D. Y.-K. Mah, “Utilizing learning analytics to support study success in higher education,” Educational Technology & Society, 2017.
S. Kotsiantis, C. Pierrakeas, and P. Pintelas, “Preventing student dropout in distance learning systems using machine learning techniques,” Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 411-426, 2004.
C. Romero and S. Ventura, “Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 601-618, 2010.
T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system,” KDD, 2016.
L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Machine Learning, vol. 45, 2001.
Z. C. Lipton, “The mythos of model interpretability,” Queue, 2016.
B. Mittelstadt et al., “The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate,” Big Data & Society, 2016.
UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence,” 2021.
Adadi and M. Berrada, “Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable AI,” IEEE Access, 2018.
S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” NeurIPS, 2017.
M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, “Why should I trust you? Explaining predictions of any classifier,” KDD, 2016.
J. Holstein et al., “Improving fairness in machine learning systems,” CHI Conference Proceedings, 2019.
R. Ferguson, “Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges,” International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 2012.
Dede, “The role of digital technologies in deeper learning,” Educational Technology, 2014.
G. Siemens, “Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline,” American Behavioral Scientist, 2013.
H. Aldowah et al., “Predicting student performance using learning analytics,” Computers & Education, 2019.
F. Doshi-Velez and B. Kim, “Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning,” 2017.
J. Bergstra and Y. Bengio, “Random search for hyper-parameter optimization,” JMLR, 2012.
J. Friedman, “Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine,” Annals of Statistics, 2001.
K. T. M. Dutt et al., “Machine learning approaches in education,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2020.
R. Guidotti et al., “A survey of methods for explaining black box models,” ACM Computing Surveys, 2018.
L. S. Shapley, “A value for n-person games,” 1953.
S. M. Lundberg et al., “Consistent individualized feature attribution for tree ensembles,” 2018.
Molnar, Interpretable Machine Learning, 2022.
B. Slack et al., “Fooling LIME and SHAP,” AAAI, 2020.
S. Barocas, M. Hardt, and A. Narayanan, Fairness and Machine Learning, 2019.
M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro, “Equality of opportunity in supervised learning,” NeurIPS, 2016.
J. Kleinberg et al., “Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores,” 2017.
J. Pearl, Causality, 2009.
Bareinboim and J. Pearl, “Causal inference and the data-fusion problem,” 2016.
R. Tempelaar et al., “Learning analytics in higher education,” Computers & Education, 2015.
S. Bryman, Social Research Methods, 2016.
Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” JMLR, 2011.
M. Abadi et al., “TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning,” 2016.
J. Richardson et al., “Student engagement and academic performance,” Review of Educational Research, 2012.
T. Mitchell et al., “Model cards for model reporting,” 2019.
European Commission, “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI,” 2019.
C. O’Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction, 2016.
OECD, “AI in Education: Challenges and Opportunities,” 2021.
World Economic Forum, “Future of Jobs Report,” 2023.
B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64-70, 2002.
P. H. Winne and J. C. Nesbit, “The psychology of academic achievement,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 653-678, 2010.
